The OP asked why people do not use the license they believed would solve their issues.
I was later asked to justify why that specific license wouldn’t fix the issues I previously put forward.
I did BOTH points in a single response.
You had argued that others could benefit from the original owner’s work, which I AGREED with.
You might need to read more of my replies in this thread to undrstand the context.
Remixes are not allowed to be entered into contests.
Given current incentives, I can understand the reluctance to allow others to post remixes. Capitalism baby! However, I’d be very willing to trade that for getting step files, which would make it far easier for me to do my own remix for whatever personal reason I may have. I wish everyone would post their original step files.
As far as sharing back your remix, maybe gift it back to the original author and let them post it, so they get derivative benefit and others get some benefit from your work? After all, you got at least some benefit from the original author’s work, or else you wouldn’t have used their work as the basis for your remix. Seems like a reasonable quid pro quo to me. In addition, you’re no worse off than if you didn’t post it at all, but at least some others can benefit from your work. If nothing else, this is in-line with sharing your models, like in the old days before people got points as an incentive for posting. And if you’re the original author, it gives you even more incentive to post, especially if it inspires the work of others.
That’s the problem right there.
But is it really? All the incentives seem to have brought out a lot more models than when there was only thingiverse or github without incentives. On balance, it seems evident that hoped for personal gain is a greater motivator for the majority of people than just sharing alone.
In my case, I’m adhering to my fusion360 license, which states I can’t get any pecuniary benefit, so that means I either give it away directly or else make a point of posting to a site that can’t or won’t give me rewards. That way, AFAIK, I stay within the EULA. To me, fusion360 is more valuable than whatever paltry rewards I might otherwise garner. I don’t fault others for pursuing gains, though, if that’s what they want to do. It seems as though some of the authors have raked in quite a bit of loot with the incentive structure, and more power to them as far as I’m concerned. Rah rah. Go for it if that’s how you’re wired. On the whole, it seems we’re all better off for it.
Really disheartened by many of the replies here. People have become so cynical 
But also happy to see more positive / constructive outlooks being added 
I understand the frustration caused by unethical users, but we shouldn’t allow those bad actors to turn us into a less giving people. Sharing is caring.
Absoloutly everything around us, including the very printers we use and the software we use to opperate them and the software that allows us to bring our ideas into reality is built on the work of countless others, going back as far as you can imagin. It’s litterally how humanity progresses.
Of course people should protect their most valuable efforts, but if it’s just a fairly simple model, yet could be useful for others to remix, or incorporate into their own designs, then please, set it free.
On the plus side, I have just realised that we can upload print profiles with altered gemomirty, which makes me very happy. I just want to have the freedom to remix and then share back, giving credit where credit is due. File formats like .step make this process far more enjoyable.
Case in point (though I made all edits in Bambu Studio), this profile I just uploaded allowing people to use the wiper from the A1 to be used. Silicone Bristled Nozzle Cleaning Brush by BATTCAVE - MakerWorld
That’s a good thing, right?
Also, look at this comment thread here… Wireless Mouse 002 - rounded rear by vanbluca - MakerWorld
I swear it doesn’t matter what you say, the majority of replies will be from people that just want to argue, without really taking the time to consider what you are saying.
So anyway, yes, I think the default licence should be some sort of share and share alike, and/or a message to suggest considering giving others the freedom to remix, and the benefits to the community that it can bring by doing so.
Just a suggestion though. Use whatever licence you want. No need to get your knickers in a bunch 
Holistically, yes. Having a problem is the only motivation required to solve it, and wanting to help others is the only motivation required to share your solution. Capitalism corrupts this natural incentive structure. The profit motive introduces work intended to make money, regardless of whether it is needed, wanted, or overall beneficial. That explains all the “junk” on the platform. Not everyone can produce good models worth sharing, but everyone wants points.
What’s wrong with what I suggested, about sharing a remix back to the original author and letting that person profit from the remix? If that person concludes, “ah, this is just junk”, and doesn’t repost it, then at least you have a filter. And it removes financial incentive from the remixer, since he/she won’t get any. On the other hand, if original author thinks it’s not junk and they could profit from it, then they’d have a reason to post it, and so improvements would have a reason to get posted. A variation would be that the original author, at his/her discretion, could credit some or all of the remixed model back to the remixer, as a kind of reward, or at least the prospect of a possible reward, for the remixer.
That seems fine, within the system we have.
I totally agree… and you mentioned the reasons why I upload the step files for my models (if possible). And because the most of my models are functional parts, which often have room for improvement, I don’t care if someone remixes it and collect points with the remix.
There’s actually a monetary limit of a few thousand dollars per year. I forget the actual number but it’s well above $0. (It’s $1000 even)
You can profit from designs built with Fusion - just not a huge amount.
Here it is from their website:
“Autodesk Fusion for personal use is a limited, free version that includes basic functionality for qualifying users who generate less than $1,000 USD in annual revenue and use for home-based, non-commercial projects only.”
Only if its an actual obvious remix, you can upload it without specifying its a remix and depending on how remixed it is people aren’t going to notice
I know, but I would like to give credit to the creators of any parts I may have used, rather than keeping that quiet. I see that as showing basic respect and gratitude, and also giving back a little by acknowledging and promoting their work.
Seeing the Standard Digital File License discourages me from doing that, though I am happy to contact them directly and ask if it’s cool first, depending on how much of their design I have used.
For instance, the hinge I took from another design to create my own nozzle wiper.
It looked perfect for my needs, but I had to scale it down, chop it up, resize parts of it, edit parts of it, adjust the tolerances (after printing it the first time), battle trying to chamfer it, because effing .stl
What is the right thing to do here?
I’d be gutted if it got removed because I gave credit to the original designer and then they reported it.
I know it’s a fairly simple component, but it took me hours to get it right, and in hindsight, I think it still needs some work. I probably would have been better off trying to create the hinge from scratch, rather than trying to hack it into shape, but once I had started down that road… 
Many times users approach me by message to ask if there is a chance that they can modify in some way some of my designs.
I have been always positive about it and most of the times i only ask for them to add a profile with such modifications.
2 weeks ago i had someone message me for a possible modification. I agreed and only asked, please, if they would refrain from uploading it somewhere or selling it. Also asked him to add a profile with that modification since i agreed that it would be beneficial for many users too.
Don’t need to say that i have not heard from that person again and i know for a fact that the design is uploaded in another platform.
Yeah, i uploaded many step files in thingiverse in my day but i quit doing it because of people taking advantage of me, as a small online creator.
That is why i don’t and i won’t upload STEP files. That time has ended when Bambu came to the market and then everyone became a creator/seller/online influencer. They pick models, they print, they upload a nice video and it’s their creation. No thank you!
Sorry to hear that
Did you report them on the other site? Was any action taken?
There is no report possible since i gave away the file and with that, my permission.
Reports only do good sometimes.
It was a lesson learned and that’s the end of the story. As i said, with Bambu coming to the market and bringing 3d printing to the masses, it also brought those kind of people that benefit the most from that ecosystem and also take advantage of others.
I miss the old times when 3d printing was complicated enough so that people would not come into the hobby just to earn a buck from others work and in such an easy way 
This is the same as free software out there on the internet, they are free that doesn’t mean they are all open source. Back then in the 90’s and Millennia, there were tons of people sharing free app, yep totally free without any advertisement or bullsh!t-ware included (such as norton 360 or McAfee…). Of course those apps are dying out, just because of enforced obsolescence of windozers. The “free” apps these days, not so much free anymore, but include tons of adware, just like 99% android apps on the google market.
My take on this: if you want to improve a model, learn CAD software properly and design the whole thing from scratch. Same goes for improving a software, learn how to program and write yourself a better one. Don’t modify other’s work, it’s not nice.
If a project was open source from the getgo, the author would have shared the source code and invited people to join in. If not, the author would just want you to respect their work.
The terms should state that the user has chosen not to allow any modifications or resale of their work.
So, it is less about discouragement and more about being on the right side of the law.
I am confused by part of the content you added in the model’s description…
I tried to share my remix of another users design to accommodate the use of the A1 wiper, but due to restrictive licencing rules, it was removed
You make it sound like the original designer is at fault for choosing the type of license they used for their model, and it was the original designer’s fault that your unauthorised remix was removed rather than the breach of license on your behalf.
It is important to note that I am not condemning you, just acknowledging the real reason.
The license is there for a reason, you may have overlooked it, you may have hoped for the best, whatever the cause, it was not the fault of the original designer.
This concerns me.
As does this.
You appear to suggest you have taken a model from someone else, used part of that model and then added things to make it your own.
However, that is a remix; you have not uploaded your new model as a remix, and you have not provided any required credit to the source designer or model.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
Had you based your work on a model with a license that clearly states it does not require attribution, you would not have posed the question or the concern.
When uploading your remix, you must select the correct type of upload, as clearly stated in the three choices presented to you.
You were required to choose number 2, provide the URL of the model you remixed and then continue with your model upload.
I can only assume the licence prohibited this, or you chose to hide the fact that your model was a remix of someone else’s work.
You will see that uploading a remix requires more than minimal efforts to qualify. Based on your portrayal of how you built the model, you took someone else’s work, made significant modifications, it is a remix.
The question we are left with is WHY have you not uploaded it correctly as a remix, and WHY have you chosen not to acknowledge the original designer?
Let me be more accurate, it isn’t basic respect, it is the law. You state you wish to show respect and gratitude, and then tell everyone you chose not to do what THEIR licence requires of you. More importantly, you stated you didn’t do any of that for fear that this new version would also be removed.
The first model you had pulled down was likely your first mistake; in hoping you didn’t suffer that again, you made a second one.
Hopefully, you do the right thing and respect the license from the source model you based your design.
I find this interesting…
You know that bad actors should be reported after acknowledging your own bad actor actions.
I answered your question. Do not get annoyed if you do not like the answer.
Was my action bad?
The first model I uploaded really was a remix, I just adjusted the size of the cavity where the silicone wiper is attached.
I uploaded it as a print profile to the original makers page.
Because the website allowed me to do that, I thought it was ok.
Obviously I wasn’t calming it as my own design and uploading it to my own page, so why wouldn’t it be?
As for my second upload, this is the model I took the hinge from, to use in my own design…
It really wasn’t just a copy and paste operation to incorporate it onto my own model, and I am also torn on whether or not something like that has any right to have a license attached to it in the first place. I mean just the super basic hinge, not the entire model (which is clearly a copy of a brush that has been available for sale for decades anyway).
If I had remodeled it from scratch, rather than hacking away at it with a digital hammer and chisel (like an idiot), would that make it any better in your eyes?
This is the sort of dumb shiz I am talking about. Far too restrictive and ridiculous. It’s a cylinder with a cone on either end!
On the flip side, look at this convo I had just moments ago…
Hi there,
I saw your desk lamp on Reddit and again today on MakerWorld and think it’s great. Your other models are really nice too
I have an idea for a lamp of my own using the Bambu kit, but I won’t be able to get the kit for a while, so I was wondering if you would be kind enough to share a .step file of just the part of your model that holds the main LED part of the kit, so that I can work from there?
I would really appreciate if you shared that small part with me, but I was thinking it would be even more awesome if you shared that part with everyone by adding that small .step file to your original upload.
What do you think?
Kind regards
Woogie
Sorry, ignore that request. I’ve just seen that the dimensions for the kit are provided on the store page. I can work with that
It would still be a cool thing for you to upload though
I have uploaded all the STEP files
Were they there all along? I feel really silly now if so.
Either way, that is really great. Thank you 
Nope, I only had STLs before. I just re-exported everything from Fusion
Best of luck with your lamp project!
Oh nice. Thank you so much, that is a really cool thing to do
See? Being overly protective doesn’t have to be the default position. You don’t have to let the bad guys turn you into something you were not before.
If sharing was encouraged, I may not have needed to ask in the first place, or maybe I still would, which is fine.
Protect what you will. Share what you can.
